January 8, 2008

The media overall are being swept up by a wave of Obamamania, in which normally hard-bitten journalists watch the orator in action and come away dazzled by his gifts... The journalistic scrutiny usually visited on instant front-runners has been replaced by something akin to a standing ovation.

What's more, the applause extends even to pundits on the right, many of whom routinely denigrate Democratic politicians and yet are strikingly warm toward Obama. There is gratitude, to be sure, that he seems poised to knock off their longtime bete noire, Hillary Clinton -- especially if he wins today's New Hampshire primary -- but also admiration for his inclusive approach to politics and for his sheer talent.

We'll have to see what happens after the hard work of sweeping Hillary aside is accomplished, but I think everyone really does like him. Not that they won't attack him in the end. In any case, he'll be hard to attack. Ask Hillary.

137 comments:

What's not to like? I mean, you got the first law school-educated one-term Senator fresh off a few years in a state legislature who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. That’s a storybook, man. Just as long as you don't pay any attention to what he says or what he wants to do. Just focus on ... Him. "His function is to act as a focusing point for [hope, change,] love, fear, and reverence; emotions which are more easily felt towards an individual than towards an organization."

Yep - a handsome voice with so little real experience or accomplishments to judge him on. Anyone who calls him/herself a conservative that has looked at his platform will not find much to like. They may love him but vote for him? I doubt it.

I mean, you got the first self-taught lawyer, with a few years in a state legislature and one unsuccessful term in Congress who is articulate and bright and clean and a funny-looking guy. And his name was Abraham Lincoln.

There is attacking the individual and attacking their policies. There is a big difference. I have pretty heated debates with liberal freinds but they don't degenerate into ad hominems. I think far too many people have lost sight of that distinction in political discourse.

Simply put, Obama is the most likable of the top three Dem contenders but as far as policy goes, he's indistinguishable from Hillary and Edwards.

The problem for Hillary is that Obama's weaknesses are Hillary's weaknesses, and Obama's strengths are also Hillary's weaknesses. She can't flank him on any side without exposing herself to major attack. So she has had to depend on finding some kind of Obama scandal to undermine him without touching on core issues of competence.

The Republican candidates, however, don't have Hillary's weaknesses, and each one of them has an engaging personality. Or engaging enough. They can attack Obama directly, even without being mean. Instead they can adopt a kind grandfather pose, gently correcting Obama at each point and continually emphasizing their experience.

This may not result in a Republican win, but it will hit Obama much harder. The goal would be for people to still like him but to realize he's not really a president. Hillary has tried to get people to not like Obama, or like her more, and that's never going to work.

And the very fact of his election induced states to attempt to leave the Union. And it's been quite ironic (if not a little amusing) to compare the things said about Bush to those said about Lincoln. Hell, some of his own cabinet members thought him an imbecile. I mentioned this to a friend several years ago. His response: "Yeah, but Bush is no Lincoln." My response: "Neither was Lincoln. At least to his contemporaries."

He's been smart in that he's avoided the black establishment, people such as Jesse, Al, and the NAACP people. No footage of him rapping or acting like a black preacher, á la Al Gore, or putting on a sista accent á la Hillary Clinton.

I think he's being careful to behave in a manner that appeals to white voters, and basically ignoring black voters. If he is forced into embracing the black establishment, to the point of picking a black running mate, for example, he'll go down in flames. He'll make a safe white bread VP pick.

From the Daily Gut:So, while watching the debates over the weekend, I figured out why Obama is rising in popularity, and why Hilary is sinking like something that sinks. Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look pretty, and we love him. And Hilary doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look constipated, and you hate her.

Obama is likable - that is until we find out more about him. Unfortunately for Obama, we still have 11 months to the election. In that time most Americans will find that Obama is actually against them in one way or another. I.e. Obama wants to take your money, your guns, your health care, your freedoms.

I know some people in the press (including blacks) who have met Obama and don't like him at all. The consensus is that he responds very badly to any (even implied) criticism and that he is quite arrogant once one gets past the smile.

No, he's not an Abe Lincoln. Abe was older and had far more life experience. The more apt comparison is JFK. About the same age and same empty resume, except JFK had that whole WWII PT-109 thing going for him. But then, Obama has race and Harvard Law Review going for him.

At least with Hillary we could hope for a more robust foreign policy (for a Dem anyway) while she flushes the nation down the socialist sinkhole. With Obama you can add a Kumbayah approach to foreign affairs to help hasten our demise.

I will certainly give Obama high marks for oratory--but as Sloan suggests, there isnt much in his policy bag that is going to sit well with lots of Americans. Comparisons to JFK are highly overwrought--if JFK were running today, it would probably be as a republican--or at least a Lieberman-like democrat. And mythology notwithstanding, JFK wasnt all the popular at the time.

I distrust articles that allege that conservatives are loving the Obamarama. It's like those stories about "lifelong Republicans" or "undecided voters" that turn out to be people who have been donating to leftwing Democrats for years.

I agree, that I think it is hard to attack him. It is difficult not to like him. He's sexy, has a great voice, and is a good talker. All very vapid responses I know but those attributes are incredibly attractive and can be powerful.

The conservatives have tried and will continue to bring him down. My mother has received emails from a republican friend of her that she sent out to all her friends in my small town that says he is a muslim and went to a Madrassa. Another email she received is that he is was a former crack dealer. Fox news did the same. That didn't really seem to stick so I imagine they will either find some real dirt on him or if all else fails just make some shit up.

I like him better than I did six months ago, but I still think this mania is overblown. He appeals to the young and inexperienced and to media who love his pure leftist apprenticeship. Hillary now seems so...un-liberal.

His oratory has a nice cadence and tone but he says nothing--he might as well be reading the phone book in these stump speeches.

Is Obama the first po-mo candidate? Or something a little more prosaic, and calculated. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

With Obama you can add a Kumbayah approach to foreign affairs to help hasten our demise.

Well, he lurches from inane pacifism to bloodthirsty warmongering and back. He would love to meet directly with the leaders of hostile nations like Iran and the DPRK. But he would also like to invade semi-friendly nations who happen to have nuclear weapons. Like Pakistan.

I'm sure he's managed to attract sober advisers to his campaign, and hopefully they'll prevent their young ward from doing anything too stupid. But he himself seems to have no clue what he's doing. Living abroad for a few years as a little boy isn't particularly good foreign policy preparation, after all.

Right now Obama is useful as an anti-Clinton device, and some of that golden gloss will be tarnished in the process - especially when Hillary! begins to lob rotten tomatoes.

After this phase of the conflict, he will have to face more critical scrutiny on issues, where his real nature will come out and scare the crap out of people. So you go, BHO. Now if the GOP can just make a rational selection...

On the Donk side it's a two-horse race. Between the two there's little substantive policy difference -- they're both very liberal-- but of the two Obama would be far better for America.

Putting the Clintons back in the White House would be like having to sleep in a hotel bed when the sheets haven't been changed in weeks.

Obama may well also recognise his foreign policy weaknesses enough that he would be an excellent student during any transition. Furthermore, Mr. Bush is a class act who would dedicate immense effort to helping Obama succeed.

Personally, however, I'd rather see Obama succeed for eight years as Governor of Illinois before he sits in the Oval Office.

He did go to Harlem and prostrate himself upon the altar of Al Sharpton.

Are you talking about Bill O'Reilly? Because he, like Obama, had dinner with Sharpton in the same Harlem soul food restaurant.

I'd rather see Obama succeed for eight years as Governor of Illinois before he sits in the Oval Office.

A nice thought, but unfortunately, since the 1960s, a Governor of Illinois is far more likely to go to Federal prison (Kerner, Walker, Ryan, possibly Blago) than to the White House (No one, ever; Adlai E. Stevenson II came closest).

Like I said elsewhere, the best thing Obama has going for him is the powerful psychological compulsion to vote for him as a kind of racial absolution. It's a compulsion to which the right is subject, too, though admittedly not as much.

"His weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable. In the Senate, he didn’t join the Gang of 14, which created a bipartisan consensus on judges, because it would have meant deviating from liberal orthodoxy and coming to the center.

How do you build a trans-partisan coalition when every single policy you propose is reliably on the left?"

Obama has gotten ridiculous press coverage in contrast to say Giuliani or Romney. If one examines Obama's record, he is neither a moderate nor someone who has brought people of different ideologies together. Although does appear to be a nice person and is a gifted intellectual with great oratory skill.

A recent article in Newsweek has incorrectly indicated that he received a Supreme Court Clerkship and in general attributed to him a post-partisanship appeal that belies his down the line liberal voting record. He was one of the most liberal members in the Illinois state senate. As for him being one of the most concilliatory liberal members of the Harvard Law Review, that is analogous to talking about one of the religious moderates at Bob Jones University, the point it is all relative.

Like Sgt Ted, I'm dubious about an article loaded with such counterfactual cliches as "normally hard-bitten journalists." What is "hard-bitten" about them as a class? As for "journalistic scrutiny," that's an odd description to apply to yet another demonstration of the journalistic herd's penchant for group-think.

In the 2004 cycle a prominent editor made news by saying that the normal Dem/left tilt of the national media could be worth up to 15 points to the Dem candidate. The only newsworthy aspect was his open acknowledgement of a reality routinely denied in proper journalistic circles. In the Obama/Hillary contest, the reigning group-think has cast Hillary in the role normally occupied by the Rep candidate, but otherwise it seems to me that this little drama is playing out according to the usual journalistic script for such things.

What will you do when you don't have old Dubya to kick around anymore?

Enjoy a Democratic Presidency and complete control of both Houses of Congress?

Well, what will you do without your "wingnuts" catnip if it turns out the dislike for HC was actually about HC?

See above! But you do see a difference between simple dislike for someone and insane obsession don't you? [Not you in particular]. For instance, where is the 24/7 coverage of Giuliani's whooping he is receiving? Is the sky falling? Nope, just a different strategy is all. Why is that Ann, do you think....?

I also have read some conservative writers that like him and have respect for him because he is beating Clinton.

I think that the "inEVITAbility" myth was a media creation, much like the myth of the much vaunted "Clinton machine". People tend to forget that BJC won with a plurality and not a straight up majority both times he ran. There have been exapmle after example in this extended primary where, Hillary has botched things, with planted questioners, fake accents, etc. The myth is going *poof*.

If you want to reveal Obama to be an empty suit, go to one of his appearances and ask him detailed questions designed to reveal the many flaws in his policies. Someone who's a specialist in a particular area could ask accessible questions that he'd have difficulty answering.

Obama's policy ideas are going to have to be examined in the coming months. It's one thing to run in the Democratic primary and say you are for universal health care to help the poor... so are all the lefty Democrats. However, when Obama comes out and says to the 85%of Americans who currently have health care and like their health care "I am going to change your health care" all of a sudden the candidate of change doesn't seem so rosey. Yes, we want change. We just don't want change to the things we like.

For those comparing Obama to Lincoln, remember that Lincoln practiced law for more than 20 years and handled more than 5,000 cases, including trial representation of railroads and barge lines, the high-speed providers of their day.

Looks like a standard-issue inaugural honeymoon to me. Having it happen before the election is admittedly a little weird. Perhaps it's an example of that Feiler Faster Thesis that Mickey Kaus is always going on about.

Obama will not carry a single southern state. The racists and religious nutjobs will be out in full force. And don't even get me started on all the blacks who'll be turned away from the polls due to some kind of registration "error."

He can't win without at least one southern state, never mind the midwest bible belt ones he'll undoubtedly lose. And so he can't win the election. Then again, neither could Hillary. Edwards was their last hope...but Iowans blew it on, well, "Hope."

P.S. How funny would it have been if the "Iron My Shirt" guy disrupted an Obama speech.

Obama, the plush Hello Kitty doll of the 2008 election, is the Teen Beat candidate, the one you most want to date. It's a crush.

Hillary is -was- the school principal or Nurse Ratched; always trying to find out if someone somewhere was having fun, just to make you stop. She's broccoli, spinach, and more fiber. That'd be okay if we needed a national Mom to tell us what to eat. IN another time her photograph would be three stories high and mandatory on every city block.

Both candidates would be disastrous for the country were the Senate and House also turn to the Democrats.

Like the 1960s, the rush to spend and spend on social programs (then for the poor, now for the retiring boomers) would result in a revisit to the Nixon-Ford-Carter era of stagflation and joblessness.

Christ. Why can't we ever get the Beatles? Instead we get the Monkees or Menudo.

I love that someone calls me a bigot for criticizing bigots. Brilliant.

For what it's worth, sorry. I didn't mean to offend any of the non-racists and non-religious nutjobs from the south. I know there are like 4 of them.

When something like 85% of Mississippians vote against gay marriage and when parading Alabamans get hard-ons at the thought of flying the Confederate Flag, that's enough to allow me to make whatever generalizations I want. So...I repeat:

Obama will not carry a single southern state. The racists and religious nutjobs will be out in full force.

ZPS said...P.S. How funny would it have been if the "Iron My Shirt" guy disrupted an Obama speech.

"Ah, the remnants of slavery!"

Naw, it's "Pick My Cotton". Then they make it into a shirt for the woman to iron. Don't you know anything.

Hoosier Daddy said...Is everyone in the South a racist? And what 'religious nutjobs' are you specifically referring to?

WHITE PEOPLE = racists, religious nutjobs. Until they show they have "changed" and are willing to vote for Obama. That's the subtext - come on whitey prove you aren't racist vote for Obama. Oh I forgot you are from - The South, The Bible Belt, The Gated Community, Bensonhurst, South Boston, The Trailer Park....

Actually South Boston has changed drastically over the past 10 years. Many of the old school "Southie" moved out and residents priced out of the South End and other areas of Boston moved in. Now it is a loft haven and real estate prices have skyrocketed pushing many of the old southie population out. They are definitely still there but they are not like they were in the 70's.

dad gave mom a vacuum cleaner here at the house where i livea real romantic that guygave her a stove two years agoas a cockroach im opposed to vacuum cleanersbut i like stoves cause of the spills yum

hillary doesnt seem to be much for stovesaltho its getting pretty hot in the kitchenshe seems more the vacuum cleaner typei bet shes sucked up a lot of dirt on obamabut her problem is how to empty the bagwithout making a mess

I agree that Obama won't carry a single southern state in the final elections.

Huckabee is up big in the polling in SC, so this must be mostly from the evangelical population. Obama will win the primary in much of the south but I highly doubt he will win any of the south after the primaries.

"My mother has received emails from a republican friend of her that she sent out to all her friends in my small town that says he is a muslim and went to a Madrassa. Another email she received is that he is was a former crack dealer. Fox news did the same."

Interesting. Was the Republican friend just forwarding the email sent by the Clinton campaign worker? Wasn't that the same person who brought up the crack thing? And then justified it by claiming it was something that those evil republicans would use? What exactly did Fox news do?

"When something like 85% of Mississippians vote against gay marriage and when parading Alabamans get hard-ons at the thought of flying the Confederate Flag, that's enough to allow me to make whatever generalizations I want."

So to be against gay marrige, you are a racist? And could you document the Alabamans who got hard ons thinking of flying a flag?

News flash- your pre-conceived assumptions about people you know nothing about are not considered proof of same.

I think Obama seems to be nice man. His policies are also 180 degrees off of mine. There for I will not vote for him. I am hopeful the majority of my fellow citizens feel the same way.

"Sorry the republican did not get it from Clinton but if you want to believe that to feel better about it go ahead."

Perhaps you could point out where I said Fox news got it from Clinton.

I asked about it because I thought the story was off, and it was. I remember this now. It was NOT a fox news show, it was the morning entertainment show and it caught flack from everyone immediately after airing it. You forgot to point that out. It was not a big fox story, it was Doocy remarking on it. Later that day, AFTER the Clinton campaign guy sent made his remarks getting the story out there, there was another story on actual fox news about this, remarking on how the Clinton campaign was spreading this rumor.

You describing this as a fox new story is really no different that the friend of your mother sending out her email.

Stumbling out of the gate, Sen. Barack Obama said in his first presidential campaign news conference that the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were “wasted.” He quickly retracted the statement, and later apologized to anybody he offended.

While the gaffe received relatively little attention in the mainstream media, Obama’s statement is a discussion point at online political forums, where the Democrat is getting mixed reviews. Some say he’s got nothing to be sorry for. Others blast him.

The fox morning show is not a fox news show? OKKKKKK. So it was just entertainment? You are warped because it was on Fox News morning "entertainment" show it doesn't really count. That is a nice rationalization.

The Clinton campaign said they never said this. It also ran in Insight Magazine and the Washington Examiner-both claiming that the Clinton camp put this out but not attributing to anyone in the campaign.

If was a big enough story that CNN ended up going to the school to see if it was true.

The show is the morning entertainment show. The guy made a comment about it based on the article in insite magazine. He also does the weather there. You get your news from the weather guy? THEN the guy from the Clinton campaign (who was then let go from the campaign) spoke to reporters and repeated what was in the magazine and THEN mentioned that the evil republicans would probably call Obama a crack dealer. THEN it was picked up on the Regular Fox new show as a story of the Clinton campaign attacking Obama. At that time the campaign let the guy go and said he didn't speak for the campaign.

To sum up. I never claimed the Clintons were the original source of the story. the magazine was. However, once it was published, the Clinton campaign jumped on it. Then when they were ridiculed for doing so, fired the guy and said he was speaking only for himself and not the official campaign.

Uh, no. That would more than likely put you in the religious nutjob camp. Or the homophobe. Which are you?"

Oh and to be clear, when I lived in Ohio and gay marriage was up for a vote, I voted for it. There could be any number of reasons people voted against it other than religion or homophobia. Why is your thinking so shallow?

I'd like to quietly note that today was the original date for another important election (now postponed to Feb. 18), one which I would have been following with at least as much interest as, and probably more than, the New Hampshire primary.

I don't consider this entirely off topic to these threads, by the way.

As a conservative, I like the guy, but won't vote for him, unless, maybe, Huckabee gets the nomination.

What would be a great race would be our two Harvard JDs running against each other (remember, last time, we had two Yalies doing the same). It would also be a race between probably the two smartest people running (sorry Hillary, but I don't think you are in their class). I do think that Romney is the one who could best beat Obama, and that would be, as noted above, through policy.

I watched Romney last night on C-Span, and the guy has a well thought out position on about everything. It was quite impressive. He was articulate and compelling on any number of subjects ranging from Pakistan to the economy.

Oh, and he got the vote of a lot of us patent attorneys by saying a couple of weeks ago precisely what we wanted to hear, that the biggest problems with the USPTO were management and lack of patent expertise at the top, and that the first thing he would do with the patent system would be to appoint IP practitioners at the top (as required by law, but ignored by this Administration - the subject of a recently dismissed case). I think the fact that among his other positions, he has thoughtfully considered that small part of the government and how to improve it is very significant and indicative of how he would run the country.

In the end, I think that the contrast between Romney who has a well thought out position on pretty much anything of relevance to the presidency, and Obama, who doesn't seem to have thought through much of anything, would be stark, and compelling.

Following Huckabee's Iowa win, 25% of Republicans nationwide now rate him as their top choice for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, up from 16% in mid-December. Sen. John McCain also saw his support increase during that time, from 14% to 19%. After losing the expectations game in Iowa by coming in second, Romney is now suffering a decline in national support, putting him well out of range for the lead. His current 9% of the vote is his worst showing in the race since early October.

Despite Jeff's statements to the contrary, it was not just Doocy. It was the whole morning team: Doocy, Carlson, and Kilmeade After they spent a few minutes discussing it, they opened up the phones and took calls about it from viewers.

Titus (and Verso), I wouldn't trust CNN to spell USA correctly. Is their take on this story true or false? How do you know? Why do you trust them?

Why watch CNN at all? What a waste of time. It's veracity is too random, its agenda too enmeshed. Pravda was at least reliably a lie, permitting one to figure out the truth by noting what was and was not reported. Deciphering CNN for truth is like piecing together shredded documents from a dumpster.

Why am I singling out the Republicans (and/or conservatives)? Because that's the party that more tends to self-style itself as the FP grown-ups. As saying FP and national security and all that stuff should trump other considerations in terms of the presidency and its role. Or at least did.

I was surprised when I toured the South how much more at ease whites and blacks were together than I was led to expect. Much more so than the NE where I lived at the time, particularly Boston. The worst racial disharmony I ever saw was on St. Thomas where the just about the entire black population was on US welfare.

THEN the guy and THEN mentioned that the evil republicans would probably call Obama a crack dealer. THEN it was picked up on the Regular Fox new show as a story of the Clinton campaign attacking Obama.

You've got the timeline totally out of wack. The Fox News smear was originally broadcast in January, 2007 -- a year ago. It was (of course) quickly debunked by CNN.

Obama will not carry a single southern state. The racists and religious nutjobs will be out in full force.

That's not much of a prediction, considering that the Democrats haven't carried a single southern state in the last two elections.

You're also missing an obvious point, which is that Obama's race only hurts him among racist liberals and moderates. Racist *conservatives* were going to vote against him anyway, regardless of his skin color, just because the man's a hardcore left-winger.

Lord."Despite Jeff's statements to the contrary, it was not just Doocy. It was the whole morning team: Doocy, Carlson, and Kilmeade After they spent a few minutes discussing it, they opened up the phones and took calls about it from viewers.

Then the story was reported by John Gibson on his Fox News program, The Big Story."

Yes, I covered the Gibson thing. The story was the clintons talking up the Obama fake stuff. If you need to make the morning show news thats fine with me. Let's talk about the unfairness to Bush and the Republicans on the news show "The View" next.

The pygmy president would have to stand on box to see over the podium at press conferences. But I would pay a lot of money to see him hit Helen Thomas with one of those blow darts that they use. I think I saw one kill a wildebeest on Wild Kingdom once with one of those. Sweet.

I think that the "inEVITAbility" myth was a media creation, much like the myth of the much vaunted "Clinton machine".

As is the Obama Walks on Water myth. He's being propped up artificially. It won't last.

I think I figured out Verso's jihad against FOX. He needs to justify to himself how Democrats could be so cowardly by refusing to take debate questions from Brit Hume, while the Repubs have the balls to go on CNN.

But wouldn't you agree that we should believe things when we have evidence for them, and no sooner?

Agreed.But how could you ever make such a decision based on anything CNN does?What they state may be true or may be false. Who knows? Their veracity is random, their tilt is left. CNN: True? False? Propaganda?

As a result, I do not watch or cite or believe anything from CNN.Not even photos or video.

The pygmy president would have a lot of advantages. He could hide under his desk when the usher heads of state into the Oval office. Then he could hear what they are really saying about us because they don’t know he is in the room. Then he could pop out and confront them. If they piss him off he can bite them on the ankle.

The pygmy president would save a lot on travel expenses. Instead of a limo, they could get one of those clown cars. If there was any trouble they could drive it up a ramp into an armored tractor trailer. They could change to a piper cub too. Air Force 1/16.

Didn't the press get their knickers in a knot over their fawning coverage in the run up to the war? Weren't we lectured on just how serious journalists needed to be? Tough, hardnosed, and unwavered by popular opinion because they needed to ask the hard questions...

And now, they are falling over themselves in this lovefest. This is precisely the time the journalists need to be asking the hard questions! At some point some reporter is gonna do some digging and this lovefest will come to an end. Lets hope its before the election because we need to know about the candidate's warts and skeletons.

Nothing personal against Obama (except that he’s a capital-L Liberal Democrat). Charisma? Heck yeah! Comparisons to the sainted JFK are apt in that regard (although in retrospect JFK was just as much a foreign policy “cowboy” as Bush ever was). However, the Dem establishment must be peeing their collective pants with all of the hyperventilating about his “unprecedented appeal to first-time voters” (translation: the young, naïve and idealistic). Because of that, I don’t think he could win the general election, unless the Reps foolishly nominate Yuckabee. Hillary, as much as conservatives dislike her, at least seems to have learned the role of compromise in American politics. Obama, maybe not so much.

People like ZPS are why I was scared to move to the South. As it turns out, I've found the whole all Southerners are racist thing to be as untrue as prejudices generally are.

Jennifer, I have experienced the same thing, having lived here since '94. I've had a neighbor make a racist comment to me and one person in another southern city. Beyond that, nothin', and I find Southerners in general eager to shed the racist label.

This routine is getting old. It actually was quite a while ago, and I keep thinking any day it will stop...

Sorry it isn't going to stop knoxtrash. Don't like it ignore it.

The south still sucks and the north hates it. Tough, we in New York laugh at it and I have many ex-confederate friends in the city and they tell me the horror stories. I have observed them myself-its gross. Although, I heard Mississippi is lovely in the winter. Granted it is the fattest, least educated, most divorces and out of wedlock marriages states but they have their priorities when it comes to those god dang faggots.

He favored tax cuts, was resolutely anti-Communist (McCarthy was a personal friend, as was Nixon prior to them becoming rivals), and favored both (a) increasing the size of the military and (b) using the US military as a foreign policy tool, including fighting Iraq-style "wars of choice" against nations perceived to be threats to America.

Then again, he was the one who backed the coup (and, later, mass killings/purges) that brought the Ba'ath party to power in Iraq in the first place. So who knows, he might have been a member of the Democratic "The World Would Be a Better Place if Hussein was Still in Power" coalition after all. :)

Exalted: please reread my comments up thread about Mr. Kennedy and note I also added the caveat or at least as Lieberman style democrat. The last democratic with whom JFK may have been comfortable was Scoop Jackson. The evidence I put forward for my "absurd claim" are the policy positions JFK staked out: Advdocate of Tax cuts, aggressive foreign policy based on military strength (missile gap), virulently anti-communist, advocate of personal responsibility (ask not...etc). Does that sound like a modern day democrat to you? If so, whom? Perhaps you fail to understand that definitions of party positions have changed rather dramatically in the past fifty plus years.

"He can't win without at least one southern state, never mind the midwest bible belt ones he'll undoubtedly lose. And so he can't win the election. Then again, neither could Hillary. Edwards was their last hope...but Iowans blew it on, well, "Hope." "

I agree with you that Obama will have difficulty winning in the South. I work at a company, in the South, where at least 50% of the employees are black. It was interesting today to see the huddles of folks talking about the primary and to hear a vast majority say that Obama lacks experience and just isn't ready to be president. Most indicated they had either made up their mind and were voting for Hillary or were leaning in her direction.

Everybody Loves Obama, and everybody hates Bush... Right? Well they got about the same amount of votes... and over 100 million voters stayed home (again). Then there's around 56 million or so McCain voters. Apparently it depends on your definition of "everybody".